Api evidence revisions cascade info retrieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about what the preview returns (counts? affected objects? dependency graph?), whether it requires permissions, or why it is a preview rather than a mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two words and a colon are technically concise but represent under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, inputs, or output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and no annotations about semantics beyond safety flags, the description should explain what the cascade preview shows and for what object; it does none of that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says what the id identifies — presumably an evidence revision, but unconfirmed — nor whether it accepts a numeric or string identifier format. Unlike a zero-parameter tool, the description had a real gap here to fill and did not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Cascade preview:" is a fragment that essentially restates the tool name's cascade_info_retrieve suffix without stating a verb, the resource, or what a cascade preview actually contains. An agent must infer from the name that this previews downstream effects for an evidence revision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The fragment implies the tool previews a cascade, which weakly suggests using it before a destructive change, but nothing states when to call it versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_evidence_revisions_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_evidence_revisions_object_retrieve. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.